harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ashish Ranjan <ashishw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Building choices (was: Re: Code contribution to harmony)
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:03:09 GMT
that is the most convincing argument till now.   :-)
bye :-)
Ashish Ranjan
India
ashishwave@yahoo.com

On 11/23/05, Graeme Johnson <Graeme_Johnson@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote on 11/21/2005 07:17:16 AM:
>
> > Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
> > > On 11/15/05, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>In the end we decided to go with a 'conventional' native code tool set
> > >>for the native source, and 'conventional' Java code tools for the Java
> > >>source.  People just felt more comfortable with that.
> > >>
> > >>Do you think we are missing out on something ;-) ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I can see a few potential issues with such "mixed" approach:
> > > - In order to contribute, people would have to learn both building
> > > technologies - Ant and make, someone may give up.
> >
> > I don't see a great advantage to asking people to learn 'cpptask' rather
> > than 'make'.  I would suggest that many more C programmers are familiar
> > with 'make' already, so we are not asking them to learn something new.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> 'make' also simplifies the bootstrapping issue.  When you are doing the
> initial port of the VM to a new platform, and you don't have java
> running yet, having your build instructions encoded in Ant is problematic.
>
> Relying on the availability of a previous java port to get the Harmony
> VM building seems like a questionable porting story.  'make' of one flavor
>
> or another is pretty much universally available, and seems like the
> pragmatic choice for building C code.
>
> Graeme Johnson
> J9 VM Team, IBM Canada.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message